Donna Adelson's motion for new trial cites jurors' TikTok and podcast activities
Alleging potential misconduct, Donna Adelson’s lawyers want to interview two jurors following her Sept. 4 conviction in the murder of a Florida law professor who was her former son-in-law.
In a new trial motion filed Sept. 15, the lawyers say Juror No. 7 went viral on TikTok following the trial and revealed she also posted to the social media website during the trial to announce she had been selected as a juror. Jurors had been warned in preliminary instructions that they could not post about the case on social media or otherwise communicate about the trial while it was underway, according to the motion.
Additionally, Juror No. 7, the jury foreperson, had speculated about new charges in the case after the verdict, calling Adelson the “matriarch mastermind” in the murder of Dan Markel, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law. Prosecutors said Adelson helped plan the murder, so that her daughter Wendi Adelson—Markel’s ex-wife—could move from Tallahassee, Florida, to South Florida with her and Markel’s two children.
Donna Adelson’s lawyers also want to interview Juror No. 5, who appeared on a podcast after the verdict. The motion says the juror revealed he considered the defendant’s reactions to testimony during trial, even though she had been warned not to express any emotion. The juror later stated he “obviously” didn’t consider her reactions, but the admission that he considered them whatsoever is concerning because they are not evidence, the motion says.
The Tallahassee Democrat, WCTV and Court TV are among the publications that covered the motion, which cited several reasons for a new trial.
One ground for a new trial is that the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict, the motion says. Prosecutors claimed that Donna Adelson agreed to a plan to murder Markel that was carried out by her son Charlie Adelson, two hitmen and the woman who hired the killers. But there is no evidence that Donna Adelson committed any act or uttered any words in furtherance of the plot before the murder, the motion says.
Charlie Adelson previously testified that he did not inform his mother he paid the killers until Sept. 17, 2014, about two months after the July 18 murder, the motion says. “No evidence was presented that Mrs. Adelson was aware of anything other than Mr. Markel had been killed” prior to Sept. 17, the document says.
Even if Donna Adelson delivered money to her son’s house after the murder, it does not support a conviction as a principal to the murder itself, the motion says. Also unpersuasive, the motion continues, is evidence that she signed payroll checks after the murder to the woman who hired the hitmen. At worst, this evidence shows culpability as an accessory after the fact, the motion asserts.
“Where is the evidence Mrs. Adelson agreed, conspired, combined or confederated with anyone else that Markel be killed? There is none,” the motion concludes.
Donna Adelson is represented by Joshua D. Zelman and Jackie Fulford of Tallahassee, Florida.
State Attorney Jack Campbell told the Tallahassee Democrat that nothing in the defense attorneys’ motion entitles Adelson to a new trial. “We’re going to continue to fight their motions for a new trial and all their defenses until the end of time,” Campbell said.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
